News

A government research report published today may have begun life as a study of Reservation Agreements, but its significance for residential surveyors is much broader: it is a further signal that the way homes are bought and sold in England is changing, and that reliable information about the property is expected to arrive earlier in the process. Members will have different views on whether that change is welcome. The RPSA's job is to make sure the profession sees it coming, understands it, and has a voice in how it is shaped.

Anyone who has bought a home in England will recognise the oddity at the heart of the present system. A buyer makes an offer after a relatively short viewing, yet much of the legal and physical information needed to judge that decision emerges only afterwards.

By then, both sides may have invested time, money and a considerable amount of emotion in the transaction. The survey can become the moment when reality finally catches up with expectation. The cost of getting this wrong is substantial: the Government now estimates that fall-throughs alone cost consumers around £400 million every year.

A government-commissioned report published today, 8 September 2026, explores whether Reservation Agreements could reduce failed transactions by asking buyers and sellers to make an earlier, more meaningful commitment. The study was commissioned by a previous administration and much of its evidence was gathered in 2019 and 2021, so it should be read as a record of research rather than a statement of current policy. Even so, its central finding speaks directly to the direction in which policy is now moving.

Commitment on its own was not enough. Consumers wanted information first.

The point at which the idea began to work

When researchers initially presented buyers and sellers with the concept of a Reservation Agreement, there was interest in making transactions more certain. However, that interest quickly ran into a very practical objection. Buyers felt they were being asked to commit before they knew enough about the property.

One participant captured the problem neatly: "This is asking us to commit to something before we know what we're committing to."

At the offer stage, there was too little information. By exchange, the agreement would add little because the parties were already committed.

The researchers therefore revised the proposal by adding a disclosure containing key information about the property and the positions of the buyer and seller. That changed the response significantly. Consumers felt that earlier information gave them a firmer basis on which to make an offer and could improve the quality of offers, increase transparency and discourage speculative participants.

That is an important distinction. The research did not establish that a deposit or signature would somehow cure every weakness in the transaction. Indeed, participants did not believe Reservation Agreements would prevent gazumping where a substantially better offer made the financial penalty worthwhile. They saw an agreement more as useful friction: something that makes either party pause before walking away without good reason.

Information was what made that commitment credible.

The survey was not an afterthought

The industry evidence went further than the disclosure form tested with consumers.

Estate agents commonly supported bringing more information to the front of the process. Some referred directly to Home Information Packs or seller-commissioned surveys, with the Scottish system frequently raised as an example of a different approach. A number felt that the proposed disclosure did not go far enough and that searches should also be available earlier.

The commercial providers interviewed had reached a similar conclusion through practical experience. All stressed the importance of carrying out legal work, and ideally a survey, upfront so that any commitment rested on as much information as possible.

This does not amount to a government endorsement of one particular commercial product, nor did the study prove that Reservation Agreements reduce fall-throughs. The proposed government trial did not proceed because the researchers concluded that neither the deposit-based nor the commitment-only model could then produce sufficiently robust evidence.

Nevertheless, the study identifies a sequencing principle that is difficult to argue with:

first establish what is being bought, then ask the parties to commit to buying and selling it.

Why this matters now

Had this report appeared in isolation, it might have been little more than an interesting record of an earlier policy project. It does not appear in isolation.

The Government's Home Buying and Selling Reform Roadmap, published in June 2026, sets out an intention to move towards standardised sales packs prepared before a property is listed. These are expected to include searches and a property condition report. Once those packs are established, the Government intends, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce binding conditional contracts.

In other words, the current roadmap follows the same sequence found necessary in the Reservation Agreements research: upfront information first, earlier commitment second.

Notably, the roadmap does not treat this as a matter for legislation alone. Among its actions for 2026, government commits to working with industry to build preparedness for binding contracts and to spreading awareness of the voluntary use of reservation agreements. It is even more specific in its chapter on binding conditional contracts, saying it will prioritise awareness of voluntary reservation agreements in instances where comprehensive upfront information is available, because existing initiatives that secure commitment earlier in the process have proven effective. Voluntary agreements built on upfront information are, in short, being encouraged now, not merely contemplated for later.

The detail is not yet settled and legislation is not immediate. Government has said it will work with industry on information that can be supplied voluntarily now, develop guidance and build capacity before statutory requirements are introduced. Questions about standards, cost, reliance, refreshing information and buyer confidence still have to be answered.

Whatever view individual members take of it, the direction of travel is no longer speculative.

A profession supportive of the aims, but cautious about the detail

These reforms should not be presented as something the profession has either united behind or turned against. The Government's own consultation figures point to something more precise: clear majority support for the aims among surveyors, combined with considerably more caution about how reform should be delivered.

The consultation received 70 responses from surveyors. Among those answering the question on the overall objectives, 69 per cent supported them, compared with 82 per cent across all respondents. That represents clear majority support, but also one of the lowest levels of support among the respondent groups. Among surveyors who disagreed, the most common concern was that speed must not come at the expense of quality and professional due diligence.

On the specific proposal to include both searches and a property condition report in upfront sales packs, 34 per cent of surveyor respondents supported including both and 21 per cent opposed it, while 56 per cent supported including at least one. Concerns included the validity of information over time, increased costs for sellers, lender acceptance and buyer trust.

Those concerns are legitimate, and they will be familiar from conversations across our own membership. Some members see earlier instruction and a more central role in the transaction. Others see echoes of Home Information Packs, worry about downward pressure on fees and scope, or simply believe the current model, in which the buyer commissions their own independent advice, serves consumers well. Both perspectives deserve to inform the RPSA's engagement as the detail is developed.

What could change for residential surveyors?

The most obvious change is timing. Surveyors are traditionally instructed by the buyer after an offer has been accepted. In a more front-loaded system, a condition assessment may be commissioned by the seller before marketing or at the very beginning of the sale.

That changes more than the name on the invoice. It raises important questions about who may rely on the report, how long it remains current, what happens if the property changes before completion, how limitations are explained to people who did not instruct the surveyor, and whether a buyer will still want separate advice tailored to their own plans and risk appetite.

It may also change the practical purpose of the report. A document placed in a digital sales pack must communicate condition clearly to several audiences and fit alongside title, search and property information data. It cannot become a vague checklist whose limitations are discovered only when a problem arises. Nor should a condition report automatically be presented as equivalent to a fuller buyer's survey if its inspection, scope and advice are different.

Surveyors' words may carry greater transactional weight too. Under a binding conditional arrangement, previously unknown property information may provide a legitimate reason to withdraw or renegotiate. Clear observations, proportionate judgements, properly recorded limitations and a defensible inspection file will therefore matter more, not less.

There is also a capacity question. If condition information moves from the post-offer stage to the pre-listing stage, demand may arrive through different channels and against different timescales. Surveying firms, panel operators and professional bodies will need to think about consistent standards, quality assurance, digital delivery and how reports are updated when marketing periods are prolonged.

Done well, this could give residential surveyors a more central role in the transaction. Problems could be identified before chains form around an uninformed assumption. Sellers could decide whether to repair, disclose or price accordingly. Buyers could make better-founded offers, and the survey would become part of the foundation of the transaction rather than a late obstacle to it.

Done badly, there is a risk of a race towards the cheapest and thinnest "condition report", with buyers mistaking data availability for professional advice. The profession therefore has a strong interest in helping to shape what good upfront condition information looks like, whether or not it welcomes the reforms themselves.

Watching this at first hand

The report also recognises that commercial providers have been doing the practical work that a government trial could not easily reproduce. Their experience highlighted the need for consumer education, close support, digital infrastructure and coordination between estate agents, conveyancers and other participants.

Many members will not have come across Gazeal, so a brief introduction is in order. Gazeal is a property technology company that works with estate agents to make agreed sales more secure. It is best known for its reservation agreements, under which buyer and seller enter into a commitment to the transaction supported by information provided upfront, and it has been operating in this space since before the government research in today's report was carried out.

The RPSA works with Gazeal through the Home Insight Survey service. RPSA panel surveyors provide professional, seller-commissioned surveys so that reliable information about condition can enter the process before a buyer has committed significant time and money. The survey contract runs directly between the allocated surveyor and the client, preserving the surveyor's professional independence.

The purpose of that involvement is not to declare that this model is the future. It is to make sure that, as the market moves in this direction, the RPSA understands from the inside how seller-commissioned condition information works in real transactions, what protections surveyors need, and where the pitfalls lie. That first-hand experience is considerably more valuable to the membership than observing from a distance.  

Where the RPSA stands

The RPSA exists to preserve the independence of residential surveying, to look for opportunities for its members, and to keep the profession up to date as the ground shifts. Today's publication engages all three.

On independence, the Association's position is straightforward: whoever commissions a report, and wherever it sits in the transaction, the surveyor's professional judgement must remain independent, the scope and limitations of the work must be honestly stated, and a condition report must never be dressed up as something it is not. If upfront condition information becomes standard, the profession must define what good looks like before someone else defines it downwards.

On opportunity, members should be aware that instruction patterns may change, that seller-commissioned work is likely to grow, and that surveyors who understand the emerging landscape will be better placed than those who first encounter it when the guidance lands.

On keeping members informed, the RPSA will continue to monitor the reform programme, engage with the guidance and consultation exercises government has promised, and report developments to members as they happen, whether the news is welcome or not.

The most useful lesson from today's publication is not that Reservation Agreements are a finished solution. The research itself is much more cautious than that. Its lasting message is that earlier commitment and earlier information are inseparable, and that message now runs through government policy as well as government research. Members are entitled to differ on whether that is a good thing. What no member can now afford is to assume it is not happening.

Further reading

• Reservation agreements: Informing the design of an effective offer, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, published 8 September 2026.
• Home buying and selling reform roadmap, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, updated 19 June 2026.